4 ms·

There are very good reasons to be anti-rich. This particular rich person is better than most, however.

zarkov99 6y ago
I disagree. There might be reasons to want reforms but for the most part the rich just played the game better than everybody else and the anti-rich crowd would, to a man/woman, instantly swap places with the rich if they could. Envy is a hell of a thing.
- the_af 6y ago
  > for the most part the rich just played the game better than everybody else That's not something Bill Gates himself believes, mind you.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Well, apart from the cases where they started on the finish line or cheated.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  The person with twice as much money as you may have played the game better than you. The person with 2000 times as much money as you did more than that. The person with 200,000 times as much money as you did was never playing the same game at all.
  - zarkov99 6y ago
    The founder of WhatsApp made 0.5 Billion from his exit. Similar outcomes exist for other unicorns, some likely even more extravagant. What game do you think these people played?
slowmovintarget 6y ago
Every time I've had this conversation it boils down to a feeling that it is morally wrong to be rich. There's some logical fallacy at the root of the feeling, like "they must have done something bad to get where they are" or "they have so much because they took it from someone else". The first is just a feeling without evidence in the hypothetical. If we're talking about a specific case of a specific rich person that did something wrong to get their riches, we can likely agree. But making a blanket statement like that is stereotyping for the sake of creating an "us-vs-them" scenario. It presumes facts not in evidence. It also doesn't address people who truly earned what they have. The second assumes the economy is a zero-sum system, which betrays a lack of understanding of economics. It is completely reasonable to debate whether a rich person has a moral responsibility to share or help. But it is not reasonable to presume guilt solely because they have means and someone else doesn't. Being anti-rich is fashionable. I don't think there are good reasons for the stance, though. Being pro-charity, and pro-giving, or in favor of redistribution is not the same as being anti-rich. One comes from philosophy and ethics, the other from the drum-beat of envy and anger.

I disagree. There might be reasons to want reforms but for the most part the rich just played the game better than everybody else and the anti-rich crowd would, to a man/woman, instantly swap places with the rich if they could. Envy is a hell of a thing.

the_af 6y ago
> for the most part the rich just played the game better than everybody else That's not something Bill Gates himself believes, mind you.
pjc50 6y ago
Well, apart from the cases where they started on the finish line or cheated.
pwinnski 6y ago
The person with twice as much money as you may have played the game better than you. The person with 2000 times as much money as you did more than that. The person with 200,000 times as much money as you did was never playing the same game at all.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  The founder of WhatsApp made 0.5 Billion from his exit. Similar outcomes exist for other unicorns, some likely even more extravagant. What game do you think these people played?

slowmovintarget 6y ago

Every time I've had this conversation it boils down to a feeling that it is morally wrong to be rich. There's some logical fallacy at the root of the feeling, like "they must have done something bad to get where they are" or "they have so much because they took it from someone else". The first is just a feeling without evidence in the hypothetical. If we're talking about a specific case of a specific rich person that did something wrong to get their riches, we can likely agree. But making a blanket statement like that is stereotyping for the sake of creating an "us-vs-them" scenario. It presumes facts not in evidence. It also doesn't address people who truly earned what they have. The second assumes the economy is a zero-sum system, which betrays a lack of understanding of economics. It is completely reasonable to debate whether a rich person has a moral responsibility to share or help. But it is not reasonable to presume guilt solely because they have means and someone else doesn't. Being anti-rich is fashionable. I don't think there are good reasons for the stance, though. Being pro-charity, and pro-giving, or in favor of redistribution is not the same as being anti-rich. One comes from philosophy and ethics, the other from the drum-beat of envy and anger.